Jurisprudential Criteria on the Admissibility of the Action for Non-Compliance in Autonomous Constitutional Precautionary Measures in Ecuador

Abstract

This research paper examines the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court of Ecuador (hereinafter CCE) regarding the admissibility of the action for non-compliance (hereinafter IS) in the execution of autonomous constitutional precautionary measures (hereinafter MC). It highlights the tension between the preventive nature of MC and the need to guarantee the effectiveness of constitutional decisions, given that these lack an independent mechanism when a trial judge cannot attain full execution due to their precautionary nature. Although the CCE has maintained the inadmissibility of the IS in the face of MC due to their provisional and revocable nature, it recognizes three exceptions: jurisdictional conflict, irreparable harm, and distortion of the constitutional nature of the measure. These exceptions reinforce the subsidiary nature of the IS, reserving it for exceptional cases in which the autonomous execution of MC proves insufficient. The analysis concludes that a strict restriction on the IS can weaken effective judicial protection. Therefore, it is proposed to make the jurisprudential criteria more flexible and broaden their scope, in order to strengthen the effectiveness of constitutional guarantees and consolidate the real protection of fundamental rights in the Ecuadorian legal system.